State Department Hypocracy in the Security Clearance Process

After some years of being involved in overseas security contracting, primarily in the middle east, I have spoken with alot of security contractors. Most of them come from military backgrounds, and most of the opportunities were for U.S. State Department Security Contracts in support of embassy and diplomatic protection efforts in hostile countries. So as you would expect, the security clearance process could be quite extensive.

In general, I learned that State Department Security Clearances were difficult to get, even for former military personnel with active military (Dept. of Defense) clearances. DoD clearances, in many cases were not good enough for State Department bureaucrats. I spoke to one individual who had been working as a security contractor for the Department of Defense for the past 10 years, doing the same job that he was applying for with the State Department- in the same country to boot. His clearance was rejected because the State Department required two years of civilian police experience that he didn’t have. Others I spoke to were washed out of the clearance process because their credit was not good enough, or because their spouse was a permanent resident, not a U.S. citizen.

The impression that many had, in applying for State Dept. security clearances was that it was a rather fickle process, and really depended on the mood of the particular bureaucrat you had reviewing your file as to whether you would be approved or not. There was always some “i” not dotted or some “t” not crossed that they could use to delay or reject your security clearance. No security clearance means you cannot work on any of their contracts. The usual time frame for completing the clearance process was 6 – 9 months. If there was an urgent government need it could take 1-3 months, but that was really pushing it.

So by all accounts, the Department of State was exhaustively scrutinizing all of the veteran military and police contractor candidates that applied for clearances to serve their country once again by protecting our embassies and diplomats overseas. This is why I am baffled by the State Department’s silence, and the media blackout concerning Anthony Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin.

Diana West wrote in her Townhall article entitled “Why Won’t the Media Cover Huma Abedin’s Ties to the Global Jihad Movement?” the following: “Abedin is also a veritable Muslim Brotherhood princess. As such, the ideological implications of her actions — plus her long and privileged access to US policy-making through Hillary Clinton — must be considered, particularly in the context of national security…Huma Abedin “worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic supremacist ideology that was founded by a top Al-Qaida financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef.” That would be for at least seven years (1996-2003), by the way, during which Abedin also worked for Hillary Clinton.

Let this sink in for just a moment. The journal that Huma worked for — which promotes Islamic supremacism and was founded by al-Qaida financer Naseef, who also headed the Muslim World League, a leading Muslim Brotherhood organization — is called the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. It was edited first by Huma’s father, Syed Abedin, and now by her mother, Saleha Abedin. Saleha is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood. Mother Abedin also directs an organization (the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child) that comes under the umbrella of the Union for Good, another U.S.-designated terrorist organization. As McCarthy reminds us, “the Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusef al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel.”

Given these alarming professional and family associations, it is hard to imagine how Huma Abedin ever received the security clearance necessary to work closely with the secretary of state. But she did, and from her powerful post, she undoubtedly exerted influence over U.S. policy-making. (In his National Review piece, McCarthy lists specific actions that bespeak a shift in U.S. foreign policy to favor the Muslim Brotherhood.)”

So the question is, with well documented ties to terrorism, as well as a Pakistani mother and Indian father with ties to the Global jihadi movement, how did she get the top level security clearance necessary to be the Secretary of State’s Chief of Staff? Is the State department really more concerned about military veterans who volunteer to protect our embassies in war zones than the highest level staff in the agency?

One Response to “State Department Hypocracy in the Security Clearance Process”

Very interesting insight! I know this much….it was a more stringent process when I was DOS cleared at a lower security classification than it was for my other agency clearances which were at a significantly higher level!!!!! And it was for doing the same exact job I had been doing at the same place with the same people! Waste of time, and taxpayers money IMHO!